KIRAC's Honeypot Has Only Losers

The debate surrounding the art collective KIRAC's Honey Pot project is chiefly an activity to fill the days of a small group of opinion-makers who have no intention of moving any closer together, says Linda Duits.

Police outside the door and security inside the building. In the run-up to a discussion evening about the art collective KIRAC's Honeypot project, De Balie faced serious threats. They are the excesses of a polarised public sphere in which no one gets around to actually discussing the issues that matter.

On the right, normally the knights of free speech, people were angry that De Balie was screening the film even though its central character, Sid Lukkassen, had withdrawn his consent to participate. After KIRAC put artist Julian Andeweg, who has been accused of rape, assault and stalking, on a horse at an earlier screening, the left woke up too. Feminist groups launched a petition against the debating centre, arguing that it was normalising sexual violence by providing a platform for the people who wanted to “uncancel” Andeweg.

Hypocrisy

Through this project — both the film and the provocation involving Andeweg — KIRAC shows how hypocritically the different camps treat their lofty principles and how deeply they have entrenched themselves. The collective shows the hypocrisy, but does not expose it. The reactions were provoked. On the evening itself, KIRAC member Kate Sinha spoke of setting up dominoes.

This provocation of emotions recalls reality television. People are placed in artificial situations, whether a cake-baking competition or an island full of horny singles, in order to generate real emotions. Such entertainment, however, can never be produced in an ethically responsible way. Participants cannot foresee the consequences of taking part, because television does everything it can to conceal the production process. Moreover, the relationship between maker and participant is unequal, with one party having barely any say over the final result.

Sid Lukkassen, too, has been denied that say. Indeed, he states his objections clearly. This therefore constitutes a violation of sexual boundaries: sharing sexual images without the consent of those involved. Hopefully Lukkassen will report it to the police so that a judge can rule on the matter. That is not censorship; it is a matter of criminal law.

Callout culture

Nor is the feminist protest an example of cancel culture. After all, nothing was cancelled: the discussion went ahead. Feminists expressed their objections through a petition and a noisy demonstration. Cancelling something or someone requires power, and these activists do not have it. People who complain about cancel culture keep producing examples that amount to very little on closer inspection. Louis C.K. is touring again; J.K. Rowling has not sold a single book fewer. It is therefore better to speak of callout culture, the term preferred in academic research. Calling attention to issues such as racism, sexism and transphobia is necessary and useful.

Whenever cancel culture is discussed, attention is diverted from what the discussion should be about. So it was here. At De Balie, there was no discussion of sexual violence, its underlying mechanisms or possible solutions. Instead, the conversation was sidetracked. Something to occupy the days of a small group of opinion-makers and artists who have no intention of moving any closer together. And so KIRAC's Honeypot has only victims and losers.

Linda Duits is a writer and commentator. This is an adaptation of a speech delivered at the film's premiere.